Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's remaining burden is behavioral context. It does add real value by disclosing that free-plan prices lag 5 minutes and that as_of is unavailable on that plan, but it says nothing about the response shape or how pagination interacts with the view/limit caps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, and no filler. The plan caveat is compressed into a dense clause that is slightly telegraphic but still parses cleanly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scoping and the main operational caveat (plan delay). It is slightly thin on what the returned rows look like, but the schema carries the parameter burden well enough that an agent can call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only light framing — that league scoping applies and that as_of behavior depends on plan — without explaining the interaction between view, limit and alt_lines beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete verb-and-resource pair: it places PrizePicks lines beside offered sportsbook prices for a league, and adds the purpose of spotting where the line differs from the market. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_odds or get_projections, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it to see where a line differs from the market" gives one intended use case, and the free-plan note warns about delayed prices. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never points at the closest alternatives (get_odds, get_line_history, get_imported_lines) for agents who only want raw prices or historical movement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.